Buffett Rule Bores, Annoys Washington Post Reporters

The “Buffett rule”–as in Warren Buffett–suggests that super-rich should pay a tax rate comparable to middle-income earners. In Buffett’s case, this grew out of his observation that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Seems straightforward enough–and the public thinks so. But the Washington Post seemed to feel otherwise on April 12.

A news story by David Fahrenthold kicked off with this observation:

The great moral debate of the 2012 campaign is turning out to be as inspiring as drunks arguing over a bar tab.

Really?

The “debate” he’s talking about pits those who believe in raising tax rates for millionaires against those who think Medicare and Medicaid recipients should pay more–part of Mr. Serious Paul Ryan’s budget plan.

Is that really like drunks arguing over a bar tab? Fahrentold’s real problem, apparently, is that a Buffett rule doesn’t balance the budget: “Even if it passed, the rule would not likely make a serious dent in the country’s deficit.”

As with too much of what passes for political reporting, the real issue is framing and campaign tactics:

Democrats have framed the bill, and its expected defeat, as object lessons about a lack of economic fairness.

This is an extraordinary campaign-season message: Most candidates promise lower taxes. Democrats will promise higher ones. But only–they’ll say–on people who deserve them.

And, for good measure, a bit of “both sides say” balance, as in “Both sides have tried to cast their opponents’ plan as unthinkably harsh.”

I’m still not sure what this has to do with arguing drunks. Meanwhile, Post columnist Dana Milbank (4/11/12) has some things to say about this business of raising taxes on millionaires:

President Obama admits it: His proposed “Buffett Rule” tax on millionaires is a gimmick.

The “gimmick” is, apparently, that raising tax rates for millionaires is “gimmicky and insufficient.” He explains:

Obama’s claim that the Buffett Rule “is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness” would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction, too.

Well, what would those other steps be? Like other Beltwaymediafigures, Milbank faults Obama for “appointing the Simpson/Bowles commission and then disregarding its findings.”

But there are no such “findings.” The commission’s co-chairs offered a plan of their own, and the commission voted it down.

Milbank says he wants something bigger from Obama. But what exactly? Given his history, what he would seem to mostly want to see is the White House move to the right. When the Progressive Caucus unveiled a budget plan, Milbank red-baited and belittled their efforts.

When White House figures complained about progressive critics, Milbank had their back, complaining that critics of the Afghan War policy should get on board with the escalation.

And Milbank wrote that he was “really proud” of Obama for standing up to “hard-core liberal” Pete DeFazio on tax policy–a welcome relief from the healthcare debate, which to Milbank was doomed by Obama’s decision to give the left wing of the party too much control.

It’s hard to believe that Milbank and others like him are really bothered by gimmicks–it’s this particular policy–raising taxes on the wealthy–that they don’t care for.

Milbank writes:

The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements. White House reporters, tiring of the theme, have proposed a Jimmy Buffett Rule (three-drink minimum) and a Buffet Rule (Newt Gingrich would be an obvious candidate).

Sorry to hear that reporters are so tired of covering tax policy and income inequality.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

Such as the endless prattling by Obamaphiles that the Buffett Rule would be some revolutionary advance in tax fairness, when the highest individual tax bracket at one point (under radicals like Ike) was 91%, and has dropped precipitously ever since.

The once thoroughly mainstream concept of a progressive income tax rate has been replaced by the rubric of “fairness”, which equates to working stiffs paying the same percentage as multibillionaries.

How that equates to equity is beyond the ability of my fatigued faculties to comprehend.

There’s a good reason Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. His income is investment income which is taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

I’m also really tired of people declaiming what a saint Warren Buffett is. Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway has been in an almost decade-long dispute with the IRS over how much taxes it owes. So he most certainly is not paying even the Capital Gains tax he should be paying.

Read the Heritage foundation morning bell, entitled “Buffet rules 101″.It explains things pretty well.And Minnmouth is right.He is fighting the IRS tooth and nail NOT to pay on a one billion dollar bill.He is a scam artist talking to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.Why- is the only question worth debating.

Rafael, I’m much farther to the left than you will ever think of being. But it’s always so much easier for a good Democrat to holler “right winger, right winger” than to give an issue some serious thought. And if you truly do not see the disconnect between the so-called Buffett Rule (to supposedly give us a fairer tax system) and the fact that he doesn’t pay his taxes, then you should not be allowed to vote, let alone speak.

Well, if you’re wanting to make it personal, Mouth, the disconnect is in your brain: Where did you pull the fantastic claim that Warren doesn’t pay his taxes? In fact, he may be disputing the amount owed, and the appeal process seems long, but nowhere except your fevered imagination does there exist any evidence that he doesn’t pay his taxes.

I never yelled what you claim. And nice to see that someone ‘farther to the left’ believes not only in disenfranchisement but muzzling differing opinion. Touche!

Rafael, I should have known better than to disagree with an Obamoron. I’d love to owe a billion dollars in taxes and keep from paying them for 10 years and then finally saying, OK, you got me. Here’s your money. And then keeping the interest.

the rich ,who became rich through the labor of people, should be required to pay through the nose just like us poor folk. warren buffet’s company and himself personnally should be paying at a rate of say 90%. that’s revolutionary isn’t it?

Well Ajamu not to be to graphic but the rich are paying 87% of the bill while the bottom 50% pay NOTHING.To me that is paying through the ass.And remember the truth here.If Obama got every tax he ever dreamed of in his xmas stocking,it would pay but a small percentage of his increased spending.So mathematically this is a non starter.It is about what the left terms as “fairness”.A sliding scale beyond measure.The only question that need be answered by the left, is how much the top 20% should end up paying.88% or 98% of the total?And the canard that the rich made it on the backs of the poor is not slipping by me.The rich made it while EMPLOYING the poor and everyone else.
Mark Look into your constitution(Americas)It says “man shall not be taxed on his wage.”Read the bottom of your IRS form.In print so small you can barely read it.It says “this is a voluntary contribution”.Looks like somewhere along the road we lost the trail.

michael e: ask someone in the bottom 50% if they pay taxes. They will show you a pay stub which shows the percent taken out of their check for payroll taxes and state taxes; these are not refunded at the end of the year. They can also tell you what the sales taxes are where they live, and what the local taxes are. What do you mean they don’t pay taxes?!

tt, michael’s gotten federal taxes and federal income taxes mixed up again…he’s done that before here at fair.

most people, of course, pay payroll taxes and/or excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, alcohol and their phone bills. approximately 70% of those who pay no federal income tax pay into social security. the 30% who don’t are almost all either retired or disabled.

this year 46% paid no federal income tax…..with the majority [53/6%] of non-payers bringing in less than $16,812. that’s income below what 80% of Americans earn.

people in the second-lowest quintile [the 60%-80% range] accounted for 29.2 percent of the total number of nonpayers.

between 2000 and 2008, the bush years, the percentage of filers who paid no federal income tax rose from 25.2 percent to 36.3 percent. The republican congress added a big child tax credit which caused much of the increase.

the increase in 2009 and 2010 was caused by people losing their jobs after the conservative’s economy collapsed in 2008.

at the other end of the scale, 24,000 people in the top 1%, and 3,000 people in the top one tenth of the top 1% paid no federal income tax in 2010.

Dick…..Your playing semantics on a very complicated question.To see some arguments over the taxing wages(not being taxed on) see” Tax protestor FAQ”.You will have to wade through a lot to understand the founders intent and the judgements of modern times.Of course courts have ruled otherwise,and the 16 Amend, is the whole other argument. The founders felt this was the heart of what we did not want in this country.
TT the rich also pay those taxes and taxes on almost everything they come in contact with.Not usually counted in judging how much the rich pay in taxes,,,,Thanks for bringing it up.The bar is usually set on Fed income tax.

Sorry was cut off……Also read the thirteenth amend.Interesting angle on that.But remember the more you study tax law the more you come to a conclusion.We are very lucky to have ANY restraints on Government taxation.They have the power under court concurrent decisions on the constitution to tax you on anything and everything they may want, aside from a few specific instances.And personally i think even those things specifically named by the constitution could be circumvented with various interpretations.Tax protestors are usually shot down because the courts simple do not agree with them because they choose not to.Sometimes their logic and understanding of the founders intent is secondary to what the government needs or wants.The founders were often clear in their intent but less so in their contracts ability to test the trials of time and slick legal judgements.Good enough so far to keep government hands off of some things ….but for how long?

Doug, Micheal, Minn, Raphael: So let’s see your answer – Yes close the loop holes that allow the lower tax rate on income for the highest earners? Or no, leave their taxes where they are. What is your choice? Is there an example of a state where the republican ideal of government is in place? By state I mean nation. Is there an historical example? How well is it working for most (did it work well for most)? I think by individual freedom republicans mean no regulation on commerce. Not so much freedom of speach type stuff. I’m trying to picture if most people would thrive under current republican ideals.

Actually, the conservative concepts of no regulation other than “self regulation” for business and commerce, and of everything, and everyone being defined as a commodity have already been tried, repeatedly. For many people the results were “employment” as slaves, indentured servants, as sharecroppers, as peonage labor, or as child laborers. Of course, because as a few people enriched themselves enormously in the process, all of these things are “justified” as the unpleasant, but inevitable consequences of “progress.”

Headlines for October 26, 2011
Study: Income of Wealthiest 1 Percent Tripled over Last Three Decades
A new congressional study has found the incomes for the wealthiest one percent of Americans nearly tripled over the last three decades, far outpacing income growth for all other groups. Between 1979 and 2007, the average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent for the wealthiest Americans. The study also found the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans made more money in 2007 than the rest of the country combined.

Inequality In America Is Worse Than In Egypt, Tunisia Or Yemen

By Washington’s Blog

January 29, 2011 “Washington’s Blog” – – Egyptian, Tunisian and Yemeni protesters all say that inequality is one of the main reasons they’re protesting.
However, the U.S. actually has much greater inequality than in any of those countries.
Specifically, the “Gini Coefficient” – the figure economists use to measure inequality – is higher in the U.S.

From a Michael Moore email:
The richest 400 Americans having more than 150 million Americans combined is not only immoral and undemocratic, it is an act of violence. It kills people, here and abroad. Whether it’s the $2 billion a week we throw away on the U.S. war in Afghanistan, or the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they lack adequate health insurance, the days of Greed are going to come to an end because The People have had it.
Headlines for April 19, 2011
Income for Nation’s Wealthy Soars as Tax Rate Falls

Newly released tax data shows the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans has been effectively cut in half since the mid-1990s. In 1995, the richest 400 Americans paid on average 30 percent of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, the richest Americans paid less than 17 percent. During that same period, the combined annual income of the richest 400 Americans soared from $6 billion to $23 billion.

Posted on Feb 11, 2012

As if there were any doubt, a two-hour Senate Budget Committee hearing on Thursday reported some alarming trends in income inequality, Mother Jones reported.
Among the realities shown were the 2010 CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 325 to 1; the steep rise of the 1 percent’s share in the national income over recent decades; and the declining tax rate on America’s top earners since the early 1960s.
Mother Jones published another series of inequality charts in April, showing, among other things, that the mega-rich have taken the lion’s share of wealth produced over the last three decades while the income and wages of American workers who were boosting productivity stood still. One of the most striking facts was this: “If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.”Â —ARK

Corporate America, whose lobbyists and political lapdogs plugged these loopholes into our taxcode, have been frequent fliers to tax havens all over the world. Of the 100 largest U.S. corporations, 83 have created subsidiaries to stash profits in these havens, located in such places as the Caribbean, Liechtenstein, the Philippines, Uruguay, and Labuan – wherever that is.

Citigroup, for example, has created 427 of these tax-avoidance subsidiaries! In the past six years, it has more than quadrupled the amount of profits it tucks into the havens, presently stashing nearly $23 billion in them. This is, of course, the same Citigroup that has taken a $45-billion bailout from us taxpayers.

Baker recommends a piece in today’s New York Times (9/21/11) that was more factual than AP’s factcheck:

In 2009, 238,000 households filed returns with adjusted gross incomes of at least $1 million. One-quarter of them paid an effective federal income tax rate of less than 15 percent, the data shows, and 1,470 paid no federal income tax at all….

Though the group is small, the dollars are large. For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Just like the corporations they work for, multi-millionaire executives have become experts at accounting tricks to avoid paying taxes, according to a new study that builds on last month’s Government Accountability Office report.

The GAO said a majority of American and foreign companies doing business here pay no income tax. Now “Executive Excess 2008: How Average Taxpayers Subsidize Runaway Pay” shows how CEOs and other top executives shield huge portions of their income and stock options from tax obligations. The report was published this week by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

For instance, unlimited deferred compensation accounts, a perk for CEOs at large companies, add up to $80.6 million a year in lost tax revenue. The median value of top executives’ deferred payments is $4.5 million, according to Equilar, a pay analysis firm. Most of the rest of us, however, are limited to a maximum of $15,500 a year we can shield in a tax-deferred 401(k) account.

The authors of the report say the tax loopholes make the huge and growing gap between worker and CEO pay even bigger. They say labor law reform, specifically the Employee Free Choice Act, is critical. “Without legislative action to allow more workers the right to organize, the divide between compensation for top executives and the rest of us will only continue to grow.”

These arguments can all be seen on the flip side to see how strange is the planet Libs live on.
How can We stop people from earning so much?How can we stop people from succeeding and advancing beyond their wildest dreams?How can we not only equalize the playing field but draw everyone down to the lowest common denominator?How can we force the taxation of all success to subsidize failure?How can we ignite class warfare by hiding the simplest of facts….that the top percent are paying almost all the federal income taxes.I suppose by playing low IQ Buffet games to imply he pays less than his secretary?How can we force all corporations and wealthy people who hire the majority of all workers to pay crushing taxes that would render them uncompetitive and finally bankrupt?The answer is simple.An empowered Fed along the lines of progressive ideals.Cuba is the progressive nirvana.Everyone equal.Every one poor.Above Larry points to numbers that seen to point one way,but in reality point the other way.He just cant see it.As I read his beliefs Im stunned that he actually believes the conclusion as he sees it.The libs have but one chance I believe this time around.Prove to everyone how bad off they are.Tell them it is someone else’s fault.Tell them they need the government to save them.Finally ignite class warfare.I truly hope America sees through the negative,vitality sapping belief process that is todays Democratic party.Im very confident they will.Then I suppose you will all believe people are just stupid.I mean how could they not buy your story ?You tell it so well.
Claudin….You need look no further for examples than all around you.This nation was built on constitutional conservative values.We…America…this nation is your example .Only on a liberal sight do you have to argue that America has been a success upon this earth.It points to the reason why you want to remake her.You like your president do not like this country.We on the right see possibility everywhere.We also believe government IS the problem,not the solution.Didn’t Reagan say the most frightening words anyone could utter are “We are here from the government.We are here to help”.In line with that we believe personal freedom is tied into, and proportional to the amount of control government has over you.The right to succeed Above your highest expectations…AND the right to fail.We are born equal.But you are not guaranteed to finnish that way.We fight for the right to equal opportunity….not equal result.Government adjusting tax rates to redistribute the wealth to gain control over the population in random social engineering experiments is not the goal.It s the nightmare

Ps Larry did you really just quote Michael Moore?He is in court fighting his partners over that filthy, dirty thing called money,-tooth and nail.He also is heading into the storm headfirst fighting the IRS over that dirty thing called called (wait for it)…..money.Money he wants as much as they do.My money is on the IRS.Remember they got what it takes.To take what you got!!!!Money money money.Very rich man that Michael Moore.Gives little to charity but his table is always laden with feasts fit for a king…obviously.He and Buffet arm in arm fighting the IRS. Hypocrites extraordinaire!

Why can’t Occam’s Razor kick in, and wouldn’t that be the most fair? How about:
Everyone pays 20 % on anything they make. NO EXCEPTIONS.

NO write-offs. I realize that the CPAs might be freaked out, but I wouldn’t worry about charitable giving. Most people do want the name recognition, or they wouldn’t name their companies and charities after themselces in the first place.

If the 1% can keep their money, untaxed, in the Cayman Islands, then the 99% should be able to keep their money off-shore too, and not be taxed until that money comes ashore.

I realize that it’s now a state park, but off the West Coast, there is an island too. Since all governments seem to be willing to sell off the Commons, then that island might be for sale too. I think that the The COMMOMS of Alcatraz would be nice. Or, one of those artificial islands could be built to house the 99er monies if such a bank would need to be farther offshore. I’d put my deposits in that bank.
Then, when NO tax money was coming in at all, maybe then Congress would figure out that there really was a problem.

Well Gloriana a flat tax is a great idea.It would work AND be equitable except for two things.The 50% that now pay no Fed taxes would now pay something,even though what they bought would be totally up to them.Still the left sees this fair arrangement as a tax on the poor, and middle class.I have never understood that.The poor and middle class don’t fill up their car with gas for free because of their economic state.
But more importantly the government looses control over your money.Control……the big donkey in the room for the left.
As far as people sending their money off shore to illegal bank accounts don’t sweat it.The government has shut that down with the new powers Bus was given after 911 to track down terrorist money.Rich people have plenty of government sanctioned (and asked for) investment conduits sometimes called tax shelters.No need to be going illegal.Problem is we live in a country where a lot of folks believe the liberal swill.If you are wealthy and play by the rules to the tee…you are not paying your fair share!The house sets the rules….you follow them…..and Obama throws you to the wolves.Funny if it was not sad.As far as regular folk getting those breaks, they can.They just need to make more cash and invest it in things the government allows.There is no old boys club here.It is open to anyone.Remember during the crash normal folk lost a percentage of their total wealth.Most coming out of their 401 Ks.Percentages up to 8%.The poor lost nothing.The Rich lost closer to 50%.Some wealthy people I know lost a lot more.I actually listened to Glen beck who screamed from horsetop lantern in hand that the government was lying and it was all falling down.He said it was a matter of days if not weeks.He said buy Gold.Diversify and buy Gold.I did thank God(and Glen Beck)My friends and I listened..discussed and took the chance and acted…We did well.I suppose that makes us even worse people right?If only the government could come to my house and take it all….all would be well right?

Thanks for that article Dan.It points again to Buffets hypocrisy.There are many good reasons for tax loopholes to be closed.For taxes to be restructured.And there are ways to do it that would help ignite the economy without the pitfalls Obama brings to the table.Buffet is not a part of the equation.He is a phony.With him he has never made a move even one step away from the money trail,all perceptions to the contrary.This is not his come to Jesus moment.Just another washing of one hand with the other.So he can slip them back into his very full pockets.

Dick sounds like you did not read one word of the court cases I gave you for your homework.Granted they were very long and boring but Your back to playing semantic games.One word in the constitution has ignited thousands of pages of discourse by legal scholars.With you it is …..you missed the exact quote ,as if that was ever my intent.The question is and always has been intent.Read more on the subject.What I sent you is the starting point.

Dick the argument is such a well worn one and Jeffersons ,and Adams,Madison and Pane as well as the Pa governor who compiled it-have views on it so alive to the discussion that I DID make a mistake in claiming that the exact words in the actual document, away from the careful arguments on the subject by its authors ,were not one and the same..Of course the exact words as to what constitutes “wage” are more modern in terminology that that laid down by our founders in the constitution.http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php
Read this.It will show you the way a lot of this argument plays out.
Ndbltway…..Sorry i bore you.As far as this blog.How boring would it be without at least one dissenting voice to the lockstep of liberal marching feet?What my job has to do with this I missed?????

micheal e: sooo… I didn’t see an answer to the loophole question. yes, no? Do you believe this ideal republican nation of America is working well for most? It sounds like you are totally okay with might makes right as a way for societies to structure themselves. If so, I disagree with you and anyone who thinks or writes like you. There is this tone of aggression that flows from your communication style. And you have not mentioned anything about how laws are created by the people with the most to favor them and no other. Like voter suppression. Or the disparity between the penalties for powder cocaine compared to crack cocaine. The lack of compassion that is required to think like you is disturbing to me.